A guest article by the President of the Central Committee of German Catholics, Irme Stetter-Karp, who is also a member of the Presidium of the “Synodal Path”, recently appeared in “Zeit”. She called for “to ensure that the medical intervention of abortion is made possible across the board”.
We want to and must firmly oppose this demand, which relates to the recently decided deletion of paragraph 219a of the penal code (ban on advertising abortions).
With the deletion of paragraph 219a, physicians can now explain and advertise the offer of performing abortions. The above-mentioned further political demand to actively secure the provision of abortion options in Germany in the future presupposes that the abortion is a medical service that should be available everywhere and at all times and to which one has a right.
Ultimately, the demand is based on the idea of ??a merely superficial supply mentality, in which fair distribution (area-wide) is the decisive criterion – without any orientation towards the good. All should have equal easy access to the service, even though abortion is an injustice as it causes the death of a defenseless human being.
However, not only according to the Christian, but also according to the legal point of view, abortion is not a legitimate good at all, but in most cases an illegal procedure that only remains unpunished. It is only legal in exceptional cases. From an ethical-theological point of view, the targeted killing of a child in the womb is one of those actions that are not only to be criticized, but that always remain wrong, even if this wrong can be based on understandable motives in individual cases.
In the 20th century, the talk of the “in itself bad action” fell into disrepute in the moral theology of the German-speaking world and was only accepted again as a legitimate category when the cases of sexual abuse became known in the church: The unconditional protection of minors and vulnerable adults (beyond protection against sexual violence) must always and unconditionally be guaranteed. The same should apply to the unborn.
Irme Stetter-Karp speaks of equality between women’s self-determination and the right to life. De facto, however, the right to life is subordinated to self-determination. However, for a woman who may feel forced to have an abortion under massive internal or external pressure, this self-determination is only fiction.
We see a very similar problem in other areas of the right to life and the protection of the human person, in which autonomy is used as an argument. The danger is leaving people virtually alone and left to their own devices instead of doing everything humanly possible to help alleviate suffering and remove obstacles to a good life. It is precisely for this reason that the Church is so vehemently opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide.
The argument for evaluating abortion as a lesser evil compared to the limitations and possible psychological challenges for the woman through pregnancy and the birth of an unwanted child is also not sufficient, because it presupposes that killing a child could represent a lesser evil than living with it the child, even in precarious circumstances. Rather, mothers and fathers sometimes report pain and feelings of guilt even years after the procedure, because they intuitively feel that the procedure was not just an insignificant one.
Here again the argument against the short-sighted point of distributive justice is shown: only a good that corresponds to justice and thus to good can be distributed comprehensively in the ethical sense.
As an argument against the child’s right to life, the mother’s deserving of protection is cited, especially with regard to the aforementioned right to self-determination. However, freedom always ends with the freedom of others.
Freedom must always aim for the good if it is not to be arbitrary. The fact that the child is not yet aware of its freedom and cannot demand it itself is not a sufficient argument, since we understand human freedom not only as freedom of action, but as freedom of essence and thus as an intrinsic characteristic, i.e. as one with the person deeply related property.
If a person is unable to use this themselves, as in the case of a serious cognitive impairment, if they can no longer realize it as in the case of advanced dementia, or if they cannot yet defend themselves like the unborn child, advocatory commitment is required as a legal intervention in the sense and for the good of the person.
The desire for freedom and self-determination and the longing for a successful life are inherent in human beings. However, like justice, successful freedom is also linked to what is good for people, and that is not arbitrary. Not all human needs can be justified by the legitimate desire for freedom. In particular, the protection of life and the physical integrity of the person must be opposed to all efforts that want to sacrifice the right to life of the weak to a liberal understanding of freedom that is not aligned with what is good and just.
It is consistent with this line of reasoning, and in defense of the dignity of the individual, that every effort must be made to provide women who are suffering, unintended or otherwise in distress with their pregnancy the full support they need .
One must not leave mothers (and fathers) alone when they feel overwhelmed, are overwhelmed by fears or see no prospects for a successful life. Since not only their unborn children, but also they themselves are particularly vulnerable, they do not deserve moralization, but mercy and active solidarity, in the hope that in the end they will be able to decide for their child despite all adversity.
The “Synodal Path” has set itself the task of protecting the most vulnerable in our society, especially children, better than was the case in the past (also in the Church). The unconditional protection of minors against sexual abuse is necessary and an urgent social and church concern. The protection of unborn children, who are absolutely dependent on the loyalty and solidarity of their mothers, should be a matter close to our hearts.
Comprehensive support for pregnant women, counseling and, in particular, assistance are necessary in order to improve the situation of women in a pregnancy conflict. The great importance of practical support and encouragement from relatives, friends and employers cannot be overestimated. A renewed “welcome culture” towards children should therefore be strived for as a social goal.
The guest article in “Zeit” also supported the political demand that abortion should be part of the usual medical training in order to ensure the best possible nationwide supply of this “service”. How does this fit with the art of medicine, which inherently aims to help and heal?
Promising never to give anyone lethal drugs if they so wished, like not giving abortifacients, was part of the Hippocratic Oath for millennia. It would be tantamount to perverting the medical profession to make abortion a mandatory part of the curriculum and thereby violate even the freedom of conscience of future doctors.
Clearly standing up for the protection of vulnerable people without discrimination therefore appears to be the Christian imperative of the hour and should be communicated unequivocally as a priority concern of the “synodal path”. It is obvious that this applies in particular to members of the Executive Committee.
The four authors are members of the Synodal Assembly of the “Synodal Path” of the German Bishops’ Conference and the Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK).
Prof. Dr. Katharina Westerhorstmann teaches Catholic theology and medical ethics at the Franciscan University of Steubenville on its campus in Gaming, Austria.
prof. Dr. Hanna-Barbara Gerl Falkovitz ist Religionsphilosophin.
Dorothea Schmidt is a freelance journalist.
Prof. Dr. Marianne Schlosser teaches Catholic theology at the University of Vienna.
